Norwalk v. Doutel - Hearing #1 (07/27/2011)

As court opens at Norwalk's GA 20 in front of Judge Maureen Dennis, Attorney Baird
is now battling two major hurdles that are standing in front of Mr. Doutel's right
to possess firearms and retrieve his property from the Norwalk Police Department.

Issue 1 - Judge Hudock's temporary order as condition of release to not possess
firearms.

Issue 2 - A protective order issued when State's Attorney Lockshier changed the
charge to Harrassment in the Second Degree.

Attorney Baird makes it clear that she has filed a motion to vacate Judge Hudock's
temporary order that Mr. Doutel not possess firearms based on the premise that the
reasoning for the temporary order was the charge of Threatening in the Second Degree.
Since this charge was substituted in the Second Status Update for Harrassment in
the Second Degree, the order should logically no longer stand.

Attorney Baird also argues that under Connecticut General Statute 54-1k(a), the
subject of the order needs to be in fear for their physical safety. The subject
of the order was clearly defined as being Sandy Staw when the order was issued during
the Second Status Update. Attorney Baird reasons that when the protective order
was issued during the Second Status Update, no evidence was introduced that Sandy
Staw was in any fear for her physical safety.

Due to the obvious mishandling of the protective order and the the important human
rights taken away from Mr. Doutel as a result, Attorney Baird makes a motion for
Judge Dennis to recuse herself from the proceedings.

Quite simply, the only evidence that Sandy Staw or Jeanine Roy were in fear for
their physical safety was the police report written by Jared Zwickler. State's Attorney
Lockshier and Judge Dennis indicate this is, in fact, the only evidence they based
their collective actions on.

As Attorney Baird indicates, the voicemail is the only main evidence in this case.
The statements by Dr. Staw and his office are tainted since they have ulterior motives
to see Mr. Doutel punsihed and tied up in court. Dr. Staw is a convicted felon against
whom Mr. Doutel has alledged possible fraudulent activities. Officer Zwickler's
report is based entirely on their accounts, which for obvious reasons, should not
be trusted on their own.

The only physical evidence in this case is the voicemail. It is the only non-biased
piece of evidence that can hint one way or the other towards Mr. Doutel's motivation
and intent that day.

State's Attorney Lockshier states openly that the only evidence needed for her to
request a protective order is the police incident report where Officer Zwickler
surmises that Jeanine Roy and Sandy Staw fear for their safety and the safety of
other personnel partly because of the voicemail and partly because Mr. Doutel 'brandishes'
a firearm. In doing so, State's Attorney Lockshier places complete faith in the
statements of a convicted felon and that felon's accomplices over a law abiding
citizen.

State's Attorney Lockshier may be correct that legally, she has enough evidence
to apply for a protective order, but free citizens in Connecticut should certainly
hope and expect that a person with such power and control over people's freedom
would exercise more care and at least an ounce of morality when making these decisions.
Citizens of Connecticut should also surely hope that even if a State's Attorney
does not exercise the aforementioned caution and care required to not simply trust
a convicted felon's word over a law abiding citizen's word, then you could certainly
hope that a judge like Judge Dennis would. Sadly, neither is reality in this case.

In a confusing move, State's Attorney Lockshier makes an objection to the subpoena
of Chief Rilling of Norwalk with the excuse that Attorney Baird is also engaged
in a Federal civil suit against the Norwalk Police Department. This is especially
confusing because the Federal civil suit is not Mr. Doutel's civil suit. The Federal
civil suit is being brought by Mrs. Doutel, since the Norwalk Police Department
stole her firearms without warrant with no accusations at all about her conduct
at any time. In fact, Mrs. Doutel still lawfully holds a pistol permit and is not
restricted or prohibited in any way from possessing firearms.

Testimony of Officer Reda

Officer Reda testifies that he had no contact with Mr. Doutel, that he did not make
entry into the residence and did not author any documents related to the case.

Testimony of Officer Salley

Officer Salley testifies that he had no contact with Mr. Doutel, that he did not
make entry into the residence and did not author any documents related to the case.
He also testifies that he "Just stood there" for "officer safety".

Officer Jared Zwickler testifies that while he was at the medical office of Dr.
Igal Staw, he reviewed no documents and his investigation into the complaints was
limited to listening to the voicemail and talking to the complaintants Jeanine Roy,
Sandy Staw and Dr. Igal Staw. Officer Zwickler does not recall whether anyone at
the medical office requested a protective order.

Officer Zwickler justifies his investigation by reasserting mysterious accusations
about how Mr. Doutel would 'brandish' his firearm at the office and how he 'made
a point of showing the firearm' to office staff. As a part of the continued investigation,
Officer Zwickler admits to calling the State Police Special Licensing and Firearms
Unit (SLFU) to establish whether or not Mr. Doutel had firearms registered to him.
He justifies this by saying he want to know if it was 'safe for him and the officers
with him'.

This logic is confusing and shows poor judgment and reasoning on behalf of the rookie
officer. Officer Zwickler at this point has already been told Mr. Doutel carries
a firearm. Even if SLFU had reported no firearms registered to Mr. Doutel, why would
any officer treat the issue in a different manner? Officer Zwickler had already
decided to arrest Mr. Doutel and was gathering other officers to surround Mr. Doutel's
residence. The issue of whether or not SLFU was aware of the firearm Mr. Doutel
carried is irrelevant, particularly when any citizen or police officer should always
assume any other person is armed at all times.

According to Officer Zwickler, the knowledge that Mr. Doutel possessed firearms
caused him to call Mr. Doutel before arriving and tell him to not have any weapons
on him or near him because he was coming to arrest Mr. Doutel.

A question must be asked: If Officer Zwickler did not trust Dr. Staw or his staff
enough to rely on their report that Mr. Doutel had a firearm, why did he trust them
enough to arrest a man based on nothing other than their accounts and a vague, non-threatening
voicemail?

Instead, it certainly appears that Officer Zwickler has made a concious decision
to raid Mr. Doutel's house without a warrant and he wanted to know what to look
for. This is a great example of why registration of firearms is an evil thing to
be abused by people with ill intent.

Officer Zwickler testifies that his first contact with Mr. Doutel consists of Mr.
Doutel on his front lawn already being arrested by other officers that were sent
as Officer Zwickler's backup. Officer Zwickler reports that Mr. Doutel complied
with the order via dispatch that he come out unarmed and surrender and that he was
compliant throughout his arrest. He also makes it clear that no officers needed
to enter the house to retrieve Mr. Doutel.

Officer Zwickler then testifies that he went inside Mr. Doutel's house to search
for 'evidence of firearms' related to the charge of Second Degree Threatening. This
is odd, because Officer Zwickler then admits that he did not know what firearms
were involved in the complaint and had no description to search for. Instead, Officer
Zwickler admits he just removed all the firearms he found inside the home without
justification. If the reasoning is 'evidence' of the crime he believes Mr. Doutel
committed, why is the seizure limited to firearms and not holsters and his phone
as well? Why not seize the hat that Mr. Doutel carefully placed over the firearm
in the examination room?

Officer Zwickler doesn't remember how many other officers were in the house or who
they were, but does remember that Mr. Doutel was in the house with him.

The voicemail recording is played for the courtroom.

During an objection in the middle of Officer Zwickler's testimony, State's Attorney
Lockshier admits:

I think on a previous court date that counsel had indicated or I don't know if it
I were by way of verbal motion or a written motion that she wanted these guns to
be returned to Ms. Doutel because she has a gun permit, I believe.
In the -- it's the State's position that that would still constitute constructive
possession that he should not have any guns in his home according to the protective
order and according to the temporary order and I think that that's the road we're
going down.

State's Attorney Lockshier invokes the legal fiction of constructive possession
to make clear her prejudice against the Doutel's possessing firearms, even though
there is nothing preventing Mrs. Doutel from possessing firearms in any way, nor
is there anything keeping her from carrying firearms with her pistol permit. The
law is clear that Mrs. Doutel is a law abiding citizen and there is no reason she
should not be returned the firearms that were seized without just cause from her.
Even if Mr. Doutel was convicted as a felon (like Dr. Igal Staw is), Mrs. Doutel
would still be able to legally possess and carry a firearm. It would be Mrs. Doutel's
responsibility to secure access to her firearms by Mr. Doutel.

Attorney Baird introduces the statement of Dr. Igal Staw taken at the medical office
as an exhibit. Officer Zwickler is asked to read the statement to see if he can
determine what type of firearm was reported to have been 'brandished' at the medical
office. Officer Zwickler responds "Dr. Staw mentioned a revolver.".

At this point, Attorney Baird references another exhibit, the list of firearms seized
from Mr. Doutel's residence with the purpose of questioning Officer Zwickler on
whether or not he confiscated a revolver or not, since his testimony indicated that
he seized the firearms as evidence of the threatening charge.

It should be noted at this point, that of the 7 firearms seized that day, not a single
one was a revolver.

Officer Zwickler testifies that when he spoke to Dr. Staw, that Dr. Staw indicated
he felt threated by the voicemail because of the context that Mr. Doutel is known
by Dr. Staw to carry a firearm.

Officer Zwickler cannot recall whether or not he transported Mr. Doutel to the police
station. Once at the police station, Officer Zwickler states that Mr. Doutel did
not exhibit the racist tendencies or 'right wing political philosophies' that Officer
Zwickler had taken as fact from Dr. Staw.

Officer Zwickler does state that Mr. Doutel was 'a little agitated' at being placed
under arrest, but that he made no inappropriate remarks or actions about it. This
sounds remarkably calm for someone being arrested on such a flimsy basis, who just
had their house searched and property seized without a warrant. Especially when
you compare his actual behavior with the type of behavior alleged in the complaint
of Dr. Staw and his associates.